Small amounts of radioactive iodine have been detected in precipitation falling in Massachusetts. The radiation in the rain water is not a threat according to authorities, but the news might indicate that there’s more to come.
Geiger counters surrounding Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power plants have indicated ever-increasing levels of radiation, despite the restoration of power to most of the power cores. The latest readings could mean that increased levels of radioactive elements might show up around the globe.
“The drinking water supply in Massachusetts is unaffected by this short-term, slight elevation in radiation. However, we will carefully monitor the drinking water as we exercise an abundance of caution,” DPH Commissioner John Auerbach said.
The current wind and water patterns around the globe made Massachusetts the target of the escaping radioactive materials from Fukushima, but changing winds could easily redirect the material anywhere. Now, with full nuclear meltdown a lesser threat in Japan, what’s worrying authorities is what will become of the radioactive material that’s already leaked from the severely damaged nuclear facility. Just this morning Japanese authorities evacuated one of the reactors after reports of radiation levels 100,000 times normal levels inside the control room. At that level, a worker will reach his yearly allowable exposure in only 15 minutes!
But it’s not all contained within the plants, another reading taken from the sea water 1,000 feet outside the facility showed radioactive iodine levels 1,850 times higher than legal limits. It’s clear that even if no further leaks occur, the amount of radiation already leaked from the plants is enough to cause trouble.
For now, only radioactive iodine, I-131 has been found in Massachusetts. The good news is that I-131 has a very short half-life of about eight days, and therefore won’t accumulate for long periods. The debate over the use of nuclear power following the Japan quake and tsunami continues to rage. But if proponents of nuclear power begin seeing radioactive material landing in their own hometown, opinions might change rather quickly. Where do you stand on the nuclear debate? Let me know in the comment section!
Photos: www.wenn.com
March 28th, 2011 at 1:10 am
It appears that the Japanese government, as well as the Japanese nuclear authorities, either were unaware of the severity of the possibility of comntaminated water leaking into the environment, or intentionally downplayed the severity in order to alleviate general panic among the afffected residents in the evacuation area. Now that the facts show at least 2 explosions, and spent fuel rods completely uncovered, requests for international assistance should have been forthcoming within hours and not days.
Now that the severity is evident, the world can only that containmet efforts will be successful in keeping radiation leakage to a minimum.
The fact that traces of I-131 with such a short half life are encouraging, but with all the Tradewinds blowing West to East, if there were to be a release of a plutonium cloud of steam,the urgency for much of the USA would be a potentially more dangerous scenario.
We would then be restricting sale of vegetables and crops from Calfornia to Virginia, with devastating effect to the agricultural economy. I’m sure that livestock, such as poltury, beef, chicken, and dairy cows would also exhibit hgher levels of redioactivity in their blood streams as well.
This accident should serve as a world wide wake up call that development of alternative energy needs to be brought center stage, regardless of cost, and that nuclear energy is too dangerous overall.
March 28th, 2011 at 2:21 am
[...] read more… [...]
March 28th, 2011 at 7:05 am
[...] how continue patterns change, any city could have been a aim of Fukushima’s radioactive chemicals. So, is there a approach to envision where it will strike [...]
March 28th, 2011 at 8:10 pm
“This accident should serve as a world wide wake up call that development of alternative energy needs to be brought center stag”
if by alternative energy you mean
coal
oil
and
natural gas
you are correct.